Tweet
When I saw Speaker Pelosi and House Majority Leader Hoyer inexplicably declare victory this morning, I knew that I’d soon be geting an email from Rep. Chris Van Hollen, DCCC Chairman, asking for money as a show of support and blaming the Republicans for trying to block real health care reform.
And, sure enough, the email arrived early this afternoon.
“RAPID RESPONSE” the email announces.
With excitement, the email goes on to say
Now that we’ve taken this historic step, the media, pundits, and defenders of the status quo are wondering, “How will you respond?” Help us raise $50,000 by MIDNIGHT TONIGHT to send a powerful message that the American people stand behind a strong public option and comprehensive health care reform.
And, before the end of the email, we’re fed this kind of nonsense:
With Republicans digging in even harder now to protect the status quo, we need grassroots Democrats like you to help us finish the job.
Well, Rep. Van Hollen asked me how I’m going to respond, so here’s my response, sent via the DCCC’s contact page:
October 29, 2009
Dear Congressman Chris Van Hollen, DCCC Chairman,
The only reason I can think of for you to have sent out an email today labeled “RAPID RESPONSE” and to have excitedly asked me – along with millions of other Americans who have been counting on the Democratic leadership – to help you raise $50,000 for the DCCC by “MIDNIGHT TONIGHT” is because you know that Speaker Pelosi is taking a ridiculously watered down version of health care reform to the House floor.
Inexplicably, despite the Democratic majorities that we worked hard to get in the House and Senate, you people have failed as Democratic leaders and are trying to claim victory now because you know that what will come out of the House and Senate later will be even more watered down than what Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are proposing as starting points for debate on the House and Senate floors.
I don’t blame you for trying now – at the beginning of this process, when the bills are just being proposed, but have not yet passed in either the House or the Senate – to raise as much money as you possibly can for next year’s campaign.
We both know that the base of the Democratic Party is soon going to become furious when the final legislation that goes to President Obama’s desk for his signature will be even less than what Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid have unveiled this week.
Now you say that the media will be asking how I will respond to the news that the Democratic leaders are victoriously announcing that they’re going to start debates on the House and Senate floors with already weak proposals.
Let me tell you how I, a moderate Democrat of nearly two decades, have responded. Today, I made a contribution to FDL Action for the “Fund Organizers in Arkansas: Dare Blanche Lincoln to Filibuster the Public Option” campaign. I also made a contribution to FDL Action’s ad calling on Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas) and Rep. Mike Ross (D-Arkansas) to act like Democrats, as well as to several ads produced by the PCCC and DFA that have run in Montana, Maine and Nevada.
So if you want a contribution from me, by all means, contact Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake and ask her for the money I contributed to FDL Action.
I doubt very much that she’d give it to the DCCC, though I have absolutely no doubt that she’ll soon put it to excellent use supporting primary challengers to so-called Democrats like Rep. Mike Ross and Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) and Sen. Blanche Lincoln.
Pelosi and Reid weren’t strong enough to stop so-called Democrats in the House and Senate from selling us out, so thanks for nothing.
Sincerely,
BrcPs – I’ve written to you before about not confusing the base of the Democratic Party with the lemmings who are the base of the Republican Party. I wrote that it took the base of the Republican Party six years to begin to see that the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress weren’t really working for their interests, while it has taken less than six months for the base of the Democratic Party to see that the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress are going to throw away once-in-a-generation opportunities to bring real change on behalf of all Americans.
111 Comments
I have become very cynical about donating anything to anyone until actual results are in. Can’t imagine how I got so cynical. Must mean I can do enough math to understand poll results and vote count requirements and figure out for myself where the problems lie.
It is amazing to me that Republicans at least pretend to their batshit insane base even when it hurts them politically while Democrats beat up their base for trying to get them to do what is politically popular and will keep them from committing political suicide. It also amazes me that they think they can ever really replace Repubs as the recipients for corporate campaign cash. We’re the only ones who even gave them a chance at that and the corps are certainly only waiting for any chance to go back to the ones whose votes are more reliable and whose constituents actually have no problem with corporate overlords.
We are so stupid. Governement and businees has known that for years, that’s why they can just use us to death and we fail to even re-act.
Politics, it couldn’t exist as it is, if it wasn’t for the idiots in the Country that support it. Look in the mirror to get a good look at the culprit.
I think the Democratic leadership is on to something!
Other than coming to this website to write disparaging comments, what actions have you taken to change the situation?
Are you looking in the mirror to get a good look at one of the idiots who has failed ‘to even re-act’?
Government isn’t the problem. The problem is that millions of Americans don’t take an active enough role as conscientious citizens, largely because they’ve been told again and again and that government is the problem and told that their voices don’t matter.
Excuse me but….
It is my practise that when I see someone express amazement or surprise that I question it. Are you really surpised or is that just rhetorical? You see surprise is a key indicator that you have got your hypothesis wrong. ie surprise means there’s some perspective you haven’t got right and is an invitation to educate yourself better. It (above) doesn’t surprise me at all. To me it is obvious why there is a dichotomy of behaviour there.
Same Question.
The Dems raise tons of money from corporate sources. Come on, you know that.
54, you look in YOUR mirror. When I look in mine I see a guy who voted Prog, donated Prog, demonstrated Prog and finally dropped out of the whole scene when I realized that the people were just too stupid and we have to be in even more of a crisis than the present one before things have a chance to change.
I’m just waitin’ for the breakdown.
I agree. Republican leaders do only pretend to their batshit insane base. They don’t really care about the beliefs or interests of their batshit insane base at all.
I’m not sure what explains why Democratic leaders are determined to sell out their base, Americans who are in fact telling them loudly and clearly to do what is right, and popular, and politically smart.
These Democratic leaders just seem to be determined to shoot themselves in their feet!
From “Progressive Democrats of America” to my email:
“Act Now to Pressure “Management”
Dear ubetchaiam,
Today the House unveiled its healthcare reform package. And the news is all bad.
The Kucinich Amendment, which would give the states a clear path for enacting their own single-payer legislation, was stripped from the bill.
The Weiner Amendment, which would substitute the clean, clear language of HR 676 for the behemoth of a introduced, may not be given its vote in the House—in spite of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s promise.
While single payer hangs in the balance, PDA will continue to fight for single payer at the state level. Meanwhile, we have a small window of opportunity to get the Kucinich Amendment back in the bill and to make sure that Speaker Pelosi follows through on her promise to allow a vote on single-payer—the first ever in the House.
Democratic House leaders can insert what is called a “Manager’s Amendment” into legislation, even when it is closed to any other amendments. The managers are the majority and minority members who “manage” debate for the bill on each side.
Today, tomorrow, and beyond, we need to call these “managers” and insist that the Kucinich Amendment is restored into the healthcare bill. We also need to urge these leaders to exert pressure on Speaker Pelosi—and exert it on her ourselves—to follow through on her promise to put the Weiner Amendment to a vote.
The “gang” that holds our future in their hands includes:
* Speaker Nancy Pelosi: Washington, DC, office (202) 225-4965; San Francisco office (415) 556-4862
* Majority Leader Steny Hoyer: Washington, DC, office (202) 225-4131; Greenbelt office (301) 474-0119; Waldorf office (301) 843-1577
* Rep. Henry Waxman: Washington, DC, office (202) 225-3976; Los Angeles office (323) 651-1040
* Rep. Charles Rangel: Washington, DC, office (202) 225-4365; New York office (212) 663-3900
* Rep. George Miller: Washington, DC, office (202) 225-2095; Concord office (925) 602-1880; Richmond office (510) 262-6500; Vallejo office (707) 645-1888
It’s crucial for everyone in PDA to make these calls, to make them more than once, and to tell others to make these calls. Act NOW!
In solidarity,
Tim Carpenter, National Director
great letter, Knoxville. thank you for writing it and than you for posting it.
Thanks, selise. I put the letters up in the hope that a few people will use the links to the contact pages and send letters, too.
I think the DCCC is trying to collect as much money now as possible, knowing that health care reform will get watered down even more going forward. Sad.
Jane’s doing a great job in her appearances on TRMS, the other night daring Blanche Lincoln to filibuster and tonight putting topless Joe Lieberman in his place ;->
Great letter, both personal and pointed. Thanks for posting it.
I did something probably less effective than your letter — and I may write again via their website as you did — I simply replied to their email telling them the bill is a piece of cr@p and that I would donate and work against the DCCC.
Was difficult tonight to watch Howard Dean and Anthony Weiner trying to put a good face on a bad bill.
EDIT: I about rolled off the couch when Jane started her “Miss CT going topless in front of the judges” bit. I backed up the TiVo and played it again. Brilliant!!
Concur – I’ve come to believe too, that the Dem leadership thinks we’re stupid, when we clearly are not.
I read Sirota talking about the difference between a movement, and parties, and I so agree:
What FDL Action PAC, and Jane in particular, is doing is movement politics rather than Party politics, even though Jane/we are pulling Party levers in part to accomplish the goal.
It’s a movement. It’s not a party. And movement means “things move” rather than feel-good-unity-we-won- silliness.
Movements want results. Parties want status quo.
Agreed.. well done, Knoxville. Maintained your composure.. which is more than I could have managed in reply this morning. *s*
Amen, Kelly!
Are you sure you didn’t crib that from Orwell? Actually, lie to me and tell me that comes from 1984.
Obama needs to be called out to declare his position. No more hiding behind Rahm, no more hedging for the benefit of gullible democratic ‘faith keepers’.
As we send donations to the progressives we need to request that they start questioning the President. If Lieberman can support McCain and still retain the chairmanship, then progressives should feel no qualms calling Obama out.
Expecting him to turn left in any meaningful way at this point in the legislation is beyond absurd.
Great letter, Knoxville.
I encourage EVERYONE to respond to these non-stop flag-waving, cup-passing efforts by the DNC, DCCC and DSCC.
Oh, and those fools at “Organizing for America” may stuff your mailbox as well, when they’re not out trolling the blogs and posting “Obama is so wonderful” shit. So send them a similar love note as well.
They ALL really need to hear that we, the “usual suspects,” are not going to continue to respond to their crap.
K-burg on the FDL frontpage!
And very well-deserved.
obombya. you think he is on the side of the electorate? he is a stooge for the banksters. as wayne madsen has related, he is an ex-cia operative. as bushie as any bushie.
and even worse, i suppose that because he is half negro, he has gotten the progressive left to overlook his militarist, fascist, goldmansackist ways.
let’s get into the streets. demonstrate for the termination of these imperialist wars in iraq, afghanistan. let us clamor for the termination of the empire.
you end that imperialist budget and you can take those funds and buy everyone their own personal physician. their own hospital.
think on that.
It’s like they’re singing a chorus of self-satisfaction.
In addition to the DCCC email, also got an email from HCAN today saying
I’ve appreciated all the HCAN ads that have run in Tennessee, but if HCAN can make such a statement in all seriousness, then I’m starting to understand Jane’s feelings about HCAN.
Chris Van Hollen also has the nerve to claim that Pelosi’s bill has a “strong” public option. Strong, my foot. I will not send one dime to the DCCC
However, I did see Howard Dean, Sen. George Miller (D-CA), and I think even Andy Weiner argue that this bill, while not everything we want, is still a very good bill and gives us quite a lot to start out with. I was especially impressed with Miller’s impassioned endorsement of the bill. And if Howard Dean supports it, I support it.
Even as pathetic as the Pelosi and Reid bills are, they signal what may be the most significant health care legislation in 100 years, despite Kucinich’s eloquent objections.
I suggestthat we focus our efforts on
(1) getting the best bill out of each chamber of Congress– a lot can happen in the next week, both good and bad;
(2) getting the best bill out of Conference that we can.
Bob in AZ
Statement of Speaker Pelosi, the DCCC and the former, corrupt, criminal pResident: Mission Accomplished!
The pompoms are looking a little frayed, and the designated cheerleaders today — Weiner & Dean — looked gobsmacked at what they were supposed to defend.
This is a bad bill. Is it a good start? Who knows. Will we get a chance to fix it once it’s passed? Or is this the generational bite at the apple?
I e-mailed the Democratic Party, mentioned the letter from the DCCC and said “How dare you”! I said some other things, too, like how they had stabbed the American people in the back. Spineless twits.
Those are very practical sentiments Bob, and I totally understand where a person can come from that point of view.
That being said, I will not, and won’t forget the protracted offense on the Progressive point of view. In reality, it was only a mere handful of weeks ago that Congress Critters called donors to spike funding of FDL efforts, a fact that Jane isn’t bringing back out, but that I don’t mind to in a second.
At that same time, it was the hottest part of the Teabaggger/Astroturfing war, which I covered.
I am just saying, as in my comment above, this is a movement thing, not a party thing.
I heard Dr. Dean speak on health care reform here in Knoxville about 4 weeks ago and know that he’s really not happy with what’s being proposed.
I saw Rep. Weiner on TRMS this evening and thought he was forceful in saying that he feels like he and others have compromised a lot and that he’s “offended” by Blue Dogs for acting like they have to get everything they want without compromise.
TRMS is on again now. I’ll watch both Jane and Anthony Weiner again.
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Knoxville and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
Now now, just take a breath and relax and let the ol’ Norske tell ya what he’s been doin’ ‘lo these many months. First: I haven’t given to the DCCC for over a year and I’ve taken every opportunity to contact ‘em (e-mail, phone or return mail) to tell ‘em that I won’t advance another dime to ‘em and will instead give directly to the candidate or issue of my chosing. Second: I’ve told the DNC for the last 6 months the same thing except when they called a couple a weeks ago on behlf of “the President’s healthcare initiative and the public option” I told ‘em not another dime until the President stopped pressuring progressives and stood up publically against the Blue Dogs. Third: I don’t give any money to the local, state or national party for any issue or race that is immediate, I give my time and effort instead and will only give money for party building or specific project in off years.
As for your dangerously high blood pressure on the House healthcare bill, you are gunna need to take a deep breath, a shot a good Scotch and listen to the Beethoven 6th Symphony (the”Pastoral”) before you blow your cerebral blood vessels ‘cuz this whole healthcare thing is goin’ through a lotta changes in the next few weeks before ANYTHING is final…and we need ya in good shape when the final assault is made. The progressives in BOTH the House and Senate have delivered a clear and direct message to ObamaRahma that if the President doesn’t use his ammo now on behalf of his troops he will lose all his ordnance as well as the troops that Rahm has convinced him will always be there.
There is a long way to go in a short time here Citizen Knoxville and I say this to all FDLers…use FDL action, send money or effort toward your Reps or Senators who are fightin’ the good fight and tell ‘em you’ll follow ‘em out the door if that’s what it takes…but don’t waste what energy and resources you have left howlin’ at the moon ‘cuz this thing is NOT over. I recommend that everyone listen to Brother Howard Dean on Countdown tonight before ya throw yourselves at the lunatic Mutant Ninja Naderites.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION AND DON’T SNATCH DEFEAT FROM THE JAWS OF VISTORY!!
Hey, we’re almost into late night here, and I have a request for the collective FDL memory banks:
In talk about globalization, several years ago a military guy was giving lectures that were very popular and getting some reportage, which divided the world up into 3 or so zones. I can’t remember the exact terminology, which is what I need to do a proper google, but the 3 zones were more or less as follows:
Zone 1: The 8 or so major industrial economies of the world, run mainly by capitalists. Funny thing, seemed to correspond mostly to the nations of NATO, IIRC
Zone 2: Poorer countries, less industrialized, but who were nevertheless locked into globalization (firmly in the clutches of the core industrial economies, as it were, wrapped in a kind of collective imperial embrace), and probably deeply in debt to the World Bank;
Zone 3: Poorer countries, not industrialized, who were resisting the embrace of globalization
Can anyone remember what I’m talking about? If so, please send the key words and phrases, or key personalities, to me at bobschacht at infomagic dot net, or post the info here.
Thanks,
Bob in AZ
I think there will be chances to fix it. Remember that Soc Sec and Medicare were not built in a day. IMHO fixing it in a few years will be a whole lot easier than starting over.
Bob in AZ
Knoxville, you’re the prince of letter writers. I just bet you developed the skills on a Remington. Thanks for posting this one. Great stuff.
Other than coming to this website to write disparaging comments, what actions have you taken to change the situation?
Disparaging Democrats is a large part of what many of us do. It serves to create cognitive dissonance in people, especially the rank and file who haven’t yet figured out that both parties are corporate.
So what do I do? I create awareness in Democrats that Democrats, and not Republicans, are the problem.
Nice job K-ville, and thanks for linking the contact page. One of the few phrases I can repeat is “…democrats in name only…”
The “health care family” in large part, owns the United States. This growing anxiety is declaring itself each day the Congress succumbs, individually, to the machinations of these richest, most powerful corporations. It all goes back to when the Federal Reserve was unconstitutionally created. Take care of that sore and the rest will heal. It’s my soap box. The axis of evil is more likely Aetna, and ilk.
I hope you’re right, though I still think that we have to keep sending the letters and making the phone calls and letting them know that, in fact, Obama will lose his troops and be left to face a Republican Congress come Jan 2011 and a Republican presidential challenger in 2012 without us if he doesn’t start fighting for the change that we were told to believe in.
They were so good, both of them. And apologies to you for not saying earlier that your letter to the DCCC is excellent. I always like your intelligent comments — I think you are relatively new at the Lake and an excellent addition!
I think Weiner is terrific, but if I have to hear Ron Wyden again repeating, “hold insurance companies accountable” my head is gonna ‘splode.
I don’t think these “Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid wasn’t-built-in-a-day” arguments are useful. Here’s my reasons.
In the ’30′s and the ’60′s, the major development time periods of such, there was polarization along ideological lines to be sure; however in my opinion the lines were not as bright, nor as strong, as I say there were many more moderates then. IMO, today’s scene is more polarized, fractional.
Add to that today’s speed of propaganda, and how it may be propelled literally at the speed of light/electrons across the internet. The news cycle is dead; there’s just perpetual news/noise and the winner of the decibel war, is the winner of the war.
Um, I hear ya, Norske, but my Rep is a Blue Dog and my Senators are Bayh and Lugar. I’ve written many times, might as well piss in the wind, if you’ll pardon my less than ladylike phrase.
Citizen tomatoguy:
Bless your heart Brother tomatoguy, but what makes you think that most of us around FDL aren’t comepletly aware of the condition of both political party structures and their relationship to corporate power? I for one don’t need to be told about the influence of corporate power and money on the Democratic Party, what I would like ,however, is your ideas (if any) about how to reinforce the insurgant progressives who are assaultin’ the walls of power in the party at the moment you are howlin’ about corporate Dems. At this moment there is a huge crack in the rulin’ class and we and our progressive brothers and sisters are tryin desperatelyti split it wide open…so what ideas do you have to support the fight?…those crickets are awful loud there Brother tomatohead.
I don’t believe that Democrats in Congress are for change in any meaningful sense. They are just as deeply committed to the basic tenets that prevail in the people as a whole, such as the virtue of the market and that the US is basically a peace loving, kind and generous country. Even if reality is staring them in the face to the contrary.
I think that the Democrats in Congress pretty well reflect their constituency overall. It’s just that we in this site are not a reflection of the general Democratic constituency. Like it or not we are on the fringe. A fringe that is not given to self decepton or to self mutilation.
Democrats in Congress do differ in this regard from their constituency, they are both corruptible to the same extent, it’s that being in Congress gives rise to so many more opportunities to become corrupted.
Norske,
This is excellent advice in many situations. I plan to pass the prescription along next time I see someone who needs it.
Thanks.
You are right, and as smart as the Obama campaign was last year I don’t think they fully realize that what Obama started was a movement. The people that supported him really supported the idea of a changed government. They are not core Democrats. He doesn’t seem to get it. Movement people will not blindly support Party like the GOP crowd. They will abandon Obama and the DEMs if either fail to keep their promises that were made to further the cause of more transparent and progressive policies. If Obama doesn’t begin to respond to the progressives that are the movement, he will find they have moved on by election time.
Dear Knoxville – they are acting like Democrats. Capitulation to Corporatism and subsidiary Republicanism has been the essence of the Democratic Party for almost 20 years.
Remember NAFTA? Clinton (and Rahm!) had to jam that legislation through over the objections of most of his own party in Congress.
This time, they are all in on the game, with a few minor outliers arguably the exception.
PS – the ‘lemmings’ of the (R) side actually can, and do, threaten to sit out elections if the candidate does not kowtow to them adequately, and many have voted with their feet for the likes of Perot. Who received 18.9% of the vote in 1992, likely delivering the election to ‘the Man from Hope‘.
In actuality, the Left’s unrequited devotion to the serially abusive Democrats is much more lemminglike.
You got that right!
It’s a great letter. The Democrats (the pols) are the new Republicans. They will keep acting as they do until they are replaced. We should stop funding them and working with them. They will screw us over for as long as we let them. We should stop letting them.
I sent HCAN that kind of love note. Told ‘em I wouldn’t contribute another dollar to anybody in the veal pen until they fixed this travesty of a bill.
Right and then if that final bill is still as bad as this one, let’s do everything we can to get the progressives to kill it when it goes back to the House for a final vote.
Great letter Knoxville. “Give ‘em the truth and they’ll think its hell.”
Good job, Knoxville.
I am on My reps and trying to get to Obama twenty four seven, but one person can’t do it. What have You done other than bogging and asking us to join You.
It will come, and probably not to long in the future. I’m with You on the progressive stuff, and we are seeing it’s not much different what we do.
I’m late to this party, but I wanted to let Knoxville this is what I sent the DCCC from the contact link he provided. And a similar communique went to Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi and Reid today, too.
“I understand you are soliciting donations from democrats based on Pelosi/Hoyer’s announcement this morning regarding a House bill for healthcare reform.
You call the watered down pieces of shit Reid and Pelosi have developed reform?
Had I donated a cent to ANYone for this, I’d demand my money back!!
All plans at this stage are giveaways to the big biz of ins and pharma and med, and do NOTHING to promote competition and lower prices!
As of today, Pelosi’s bill and Reid’s bill have mandates for people who can’t afford to pay, and only 150% of poverty level subsidy’s and do NOT let EVERYONE participate in a government run health plan!!!
A pure giveaway to our corporate feudalist masters.
You people should be APOLOGIZING to me and the rest of the general public for having failed us so badly. Not asking us for money.
Take me off your emailing list and let me know if and when you people develop a real progressive backbone, because right about now you are as spineless as Reid and Pelosi.
I’m serious, take me off of any lists you have, delete my info, I want nothing to do with your organization.
And on Monday, I’ll be registering as an Independent and will vote the dem’s out of office at any chance I can in ’10 and ’12.
And there are millions of the general public who feel this way. The Democrat Party has sold us all down the river in favor of the corporate overlords who donate to our elected offal’s campaign coffers.
MY OWN PARTY has sold me out, and I’ve been a Dem since I turned 18 in 1971. No more.
A pox on The House, Senate and our President for failing the masses in favor of the rich 1%.
And a pox on the DCCC, too, for all the above.
Larry Frakes
“
Let me add that today I received emails from HCAN, and another group that escapes me now . . . a supposed prog group, both looking for money based on PASSING MEANINGFUL REFORM today.
They too, got my reply, modified to fit their group specifically.
HCAN? Fuck HCAN, sorry Jason.
BRILLIANT ARTICLE!! Like i said..Obama,Pelosi,Reid and others have
to go 2010-2012.Reform(bogus) is a total sold out.
REFORM=FIASCO.
Where ,oh, where are you deriving this statement from? “They are just as deeply committed to the basic tenets that prevail in the people as a whole, such as the virtue of the market and that the US is basically a peace loving, kind and generous country.”
Great Letter Knox. This has been my response, though not so eloquently, to any of the DCCC,DNC, Organizing for America etal pleas for $$$…I voted for CHANGE and what I got was SAME…every time I think of the hope and pride I had seeing Obama election night in Grant park I feel disappointed, angry, duped and stupid. From now on its about the movement and not the party.
As for Lieberman why the hell are people so surprised. This guy was the red carpet sweeper for McCain and he stood down in the Florida vote count in the 2000 election to help deliver it to Bush for heavens sake. I mean really, how many times you do have to be punched in the face before you start to bleed?
I am sick of being a part of a Democratic Party that has no balls and clearly Obama forgot to pack his when he moved into the White House.
I got that same email from HCAN today, which says
I’ve appreciated all the HCAN ads that have run in Tennessee, but if HCAN can make such a statement in all seriousness, then I’m starting to understand Jane’s feelings about HCAN.
At the end of his Seminal post “Historic: House unveils their health care bill,” Jason says that he’s proud to work for Health Care for America Now and @ 4 in that post he wrote that the watered down bs that Reid and Pelosi rolled out this week has made him happy and hopeful.
My response @ 18 was:
In 2006, Democratic Party leaders called the Republican Party the Culture of Corruption Party. This resonated with many American voters, including myself, and in the November 2006 mid-term elections, the Culture of Corruption Republicans lost both houses of Congress.
So, what was this Corruption in the Culture of Corruption Republican Party that turned many voters away from Republicans, voters who then turned out for the Democrats, presumably to reverse this Corruption of the Culture of Corruption Republican Party?
Stolen presidential election, 2000. Result: Bush and Cheney in White House.
Inaction regarding Enron in 2001. Result: California utility ratepayers screwed. Enron employees and investors screwed.
Inaction in 2001 regarding al Qaeda terrorist threat. Result: 3,000 U.S. citizens die on 9/11.
Military resources shifted from Afghanistan to the Iraq staging area in 2002. Result: A lied-into war in Iraq, costing tens of thousands of injured or killed U.S. soldiers as well as hundreds of thousands of injured or dead Iraqi citiznes, men, women and children, while Afghanistan was left to disintegrate once again, with Afghani women and teen girls once again terrorized by hardcore religious fundamentalist fanatics, and with Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Omar remaining uncaptured.
Outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson in 2003. Result: After-incident CIA damage assessment ordered…a report which has never been released. Mrs. Wilson’s WMD counter-proliferation mission compromised as well as her CIA front company, as well as her contacts overseas. Mrs. Wilson’s 20-year career ends. Not a single top Bush official behind this treasonous act sees any jail time.
Corporate lobbyists write legislation in both the Bush/Cheney White House and the Republican-controlled Congress. Result: Deregulation. Deregulation. Deregulation. Corporations rape and pillage American consumers, American homeowners, American medical patients, American investors, with the largest corporations gobbling up smaller companies, building monopolistic mega-corporations “too big to fail.” Abramoff scandal. Soul-sucking and middle-class-destroying greed runs rampant.
In 2005, the Bush/Cheney administration politicized Hurricane Katrina. Result: Hundreds of New Orleans’ citizens die because Bush withheld desperately-needed federal emergency aid from New Orleans while simultaneously launching a smear campaign against Louisiana Democrats. Bush also turned down millions of dollars in foreign aid and assistance offered by foreign countries to help U.S. citizens devastated by Katrina. Bush also offered no-bid contracts to crony Republican-connected companies and individuals after Katrina, with many of these crony Republican-connected companies and individuals pocketing the taxpayer money while providing substandard recovery services and materials. Fraud rampant. Greed rampant.
Bush and Cheney endorse torture as new American policy. Result: Geneva Conventions torched. Secret overseas CIA prisons created. Guantanamo Bay torture facility built. A whole lot of false intel generated. Detainees murdered. Innocent people held for years without due process of any sort.
Democratic Party leaders described the Republican Party perfectly in 2006 as the Culture of Corruption political party, while I will go so far as to add that the Republican Party, both during the infamous Bush/Cheney years and today, is the Culture of Corruption and Destruction political party.
One would think that Democratic Party leaders would want to distance themselves, and their party, as far away as possible from previous actions and policies of the Culture of Corruption and Destruction Republican Party, while at the same time holding accountable as many corrupt and destructive Republicans as possible for what they’ve done to our country, our economy, our middle class, our nation’s poor.
Healthcare reform. Financial system oversight reform. Credit card reform. Guantanamo Bay reform. Afghanistan and Iraq reform. CIA reform. Private contractor reform. Katrina recovery reform. DADT reform. Patriot Act reform.
In other words, anything that Culture of Corruption and Destruction Republicans have been for or still are for, one would think, members of the “opposition party,” the Democratic Party (as well as all Independents), should be against…unless, of course, the “opposition party” and Independents want to be seen as just as corrupt and destructive as the Culture of Corruption and Destruction Republicans.
The choice is clear. The Republicans have shown us all which path they follow…lies, greed, corruption and destruction…much to the detriment of our entire country. Either Democrats (and all Independents) choose the exact opposite path…truth, sharing, integrity and constructive, broad-based policies…or our nation is doomed.
I got email from some list or another telling me of the dire threat of republican gerrymandering and the possibility that they would manipulate their way back into power. My very first thought was, “how the fuck would I tell the difference?”
I hope Pelosi, Reid and Obama wipe the insurance corporation jizz off their chins before appearing in public again, or things could be awkward.
I’m not supporting the Democratic party, monetarily or with my vote, until I see that they can use their super majority in a way that is actually beneficial to my life. Obviously this includes real health care reform and a handful of other things.
I’m afraid that many Democrats will not learn their lesson, until they lose their majority….the saying that you have to hit bottom before you really make a change applies here. There is no reason to believe, that many in this generation of Republicrats have enough resolve to do what is right. Apparently all my vote for the Democrats does is act as a vote against the Republicans and that is it.
I applaud the progressives who really fought the good fight…those who had the courage to stand by their own convictions, and acted as such. As for the rest, I hope they all lose reelection.
We would all be better off focusing on removing money from politics. Because until that happens, we will never get real change in this country and we are obviously just wasting our time thinking and acting otherwise.
~Uninsured American without an equal right to health care
Wow, I thought FDL was a progressive blog not a neo-conservative rag. Is Michelle Malkin running this site now? Heaven forbid democrats trying to raise money, give me a break. And this sentenced is nonsense? “With Republicans digging in even harder now to protect the status quo, we need grassroots Democrats like you to help us finish the job.” What is nonsense about that, it’s the truth. Weird how supposed progressives can be so venomous, it’s probably all about gay rights isn’t it…..acting like Aravosis, temper tantrums, kicking and screaming…
Oh, and Knoxville, based on your post YOU ARE STUPID.
To try and keep the Independents , they are willing to risk losing part of the left base. It is a gamble either way.
Knoxville:
Agreed. Partly.
Pressure on our governmental “representatives” is the whole and entire key here. Relentless pressure. Endless pressure.
However, I become very concerned about the application of retribution. Do we end up cutting off noses in spiting offending faces? I fear for outcomes in 2010, as you suggest DINOs should feel that same fear.
So, what do we do exactly, if we punish the Dems for failing to create the most perfect version of HCR and, by doing so, directly deliver control over this horribly flawed, corporate-infested congress, to the ever more radical, fringe, anti-human neocons just waiting to act as a cohesive mass to take back that control? Is this the ideal response?
Or, do we need to double-down in 2010? Redouble our efforts to eradicate the Authoritarian corporatists and their Authoritarian Follower T-baggers from ever again staining the hallways of government?
I vote for that latter. We already know what we get when the neos have control. We end up kidnapping people in the dark of night and torturing them. We end up spying on US citizens for political ends, and pervert justice to those same political ends.
So, if 58 seats in the Senate and 48 (or so) majority in the People’s House are not enough to give us what we demand, will making those numbers become less improve the situation? Or do we take to the streets one more time and make it 68 seats in the Senate and 50-55 seats in the House?
Our receiving Medicare for all is blocked by a handful of people on both sides of the congressional hallway — not by all of them. And, after this initial big battle to put something comprehensive in place has been won, it becomes ever easier to tweak this or that aspect down the road.
But such tweaking becomes completely impossible if we punish the guilty and, by so doing, hand control back to the Enemies of the State and Humanity that the alternative party represents.
I’m just saying… .
In the above monograph, when I said “Our receiving Medicare for all is blocked by a handful of people on both sides of the congressional hallway” I meant to say “Our receiving Medicare for all is blocked by a handful of Democrats and one ignominious independant on either side of the congressional hallway.”
The point – at least my goal – isn’t to punish Dems.
The point is that the Democratic leaders are failing and have to step up or get out of the way so we can have stronger leaders who will produce better results, in this case: real health care reform.
The fact that Democratic leaders, who have the White House and majorities in both the House and Senate, have decided to start out with ridiculously weak proposals is proof that they deserve to lose in 2010.
Let me try to put this another way: why are the current Democratic leaders so ineffective at fighting for core principles of the Democratic Party?
For example, I frankly blame the DNC and the DSCC for not doing more in 2006 to support Ned Lamont in Connecticut and to defend Harold Ford, Jr. against smears in Tennessee. I wrote to Dr. Dean back then to urge him to do more, particularly for Harold Ford, Jr. Had they fought harder, we wouldn’t have the vain Joe Lieberman running around topless, as Jane so perfectly put it last night.
I also wrote to the chairperson of the Tennessee Democratic Party to point out the backwardness of supporting a so-called Democratic Congressman like Jim Cooper (TN-5), while not even bothering to run a serious challenger to Republican John Duncan (TN-2).
I’m not trying to hurt the Democratic Party. Quite the opposite!
The leadership of the Democratic Party is hurting the Democratic Party. The leaders need to do more to support real Democrats so they can be more effective in achieving our goals, or the Democratic Party doesn’t deserve to have power.
Received a solicitation from the DNC last week. Returned it with the note “Get your money from Goldman Sachs.” You’re right, the Dem leadership thinks we are stupid. Thinking I’d rather see Repubs back in–at least they’re consistent. You know what you’re getting when they’re in instead of having your heart ripped out by Dems who promise and NEVER deliver.
The fact is that there will always be some bad apples in the Democratic caucus, whether in the House or the Senate. The question is how the Democratic party, as a majority party, with even a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, handles them.
Their advertising has been consistent for years: put us in the majority, give us 60 votes in the Senate, give us the White House, and we will perform.
Now, very frankly to their great surprise I suspect since the above was always primarily an advertising ploy rather than a serious wish, they have all three of those things.
Right now we’re right in the middle of the sausage-making; and it sure is looking very ugly. But two weeks ago we were very unhappy with Harry Reid because it looked like he was going to betray us. Well, so far, most of us, I think, agree that the bill he finally came up with, while certainly not single-payer, was on the acceptable side of the line for most of us.
That’s not to say that we should be celebrating or claiming victory. Not at all. Rather I suggest we should not be issuing any grades yet, whether A or F. Rather our grade should be Incomplete.
That’s not to say either, however, that our patience and forbearance is inexhaustible. In that regard, I also disagree with posters like The Real Fish, who suggest that if we only go for 68 in the Senate, or only pad the Dem House majority by another 10 seats, that we will then achieve Utopia. That’s completely unrealistic also, because you have to figure that that majority will have the same percentage of bad apples, and therefore the same potential for betrayal, as the current majority.
No, our standard should be exactly the one enunciated by the Dem party for years, a majority in the House, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and the White House.
All of which we now have; that standard has obviously now been met. We expect performance, and we expect such performance NOT NECESSARILY NOW, THIS MINUTE, which would be unrealistic given where we are in the sausage-making process. Rather we expect a record of performance by the time the day of reckoning rolls around, and that day is November 2nd, 2010.
Now, that raises the question “What constitutes good performance? Of what does it consist? What defines it?”
I’m not going to go down all the partculars (health, war, energy, climate and so on). For now, here’s my personal definition of it strictly with regard to health care.
We will NOT achieve serious health care reform in this cycle; that’s not in the cards, and it’s unrealistic to expect it. What we have every right to expect the Democratic party to achieve is a major defeat for the bad guys, the insurance companies, the teabaggers, the neocons and so on.
And right now that means the passage of a public option in both houses.
What defines a good public option?
Anything which is seen as a clear defeat for the bad guys.
My personal calibration puts public option with a state opt-out as on the right side of the acceptability line. Anything more conservative than that, e.g. an opt-in, a trigger, and so on, is on the wrong side of that line. My gut tells me that this puts me roughly where the preponderance of progressives stand on this issue at the moment.
Let me clarify therefore that this is NOT about Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson or Blanche Lincoln. Jerks they were yesterday, jerks they are today, and jerks they will be tomorrow. No, this is about the Democratic party now having all the marbles, and watching to see how they handle those marbles. Handling and overcoming jerks comes with the territory, it’s part of the cost of doing business. If the Dem party demonstrates that it can successfully handle the jerks and can take care of business by passing a public option no weaker than one with a state opt-out, then it, as an entity, will have demonstrated that they can win the playoffs, whether or not every single one of their players are major leaguers are not.
I see this as a very simple test, one which we should approach dispassionately and coolly. If Lieberman et al wind up being chaff in the wind who won’t play a significant or major role as the Dem party passes a piece of legislation which clearly removes the insurance companies and the teabaggers from the catbird seat, then they will have earned another two years at the helm, at least insofar as health care is concerned. If, on the other hand, the Dem party, as an entity, fails to take care of business, fails to protect against the minor league pissing from the Nelsons and the Bayhs, then they will have demonstrated their uselessness as an organized political entity, and they will need to be replaced, probably by a new party.
For what it’s worth, I see no reason not to remain optimistic, at least for now. The legislation is now out there, the defeat of the bad guys has become more possible than at any time since this battle began, and the Dem party, for now, has staved off a grade of F on health care. That, in and of itself, is encouraging and reason to celebrate.
As for what many of you will protest is the REAL issue here, namely real health care reform (which we all know really means single-payer), I say that we need to break the back of the bad guys before we can then proceed to the latter goal. Which is why Pelosi-Reid must be supported strongly by the progressive community AS IS OR BETTER, for now. Once the back of the bad guys is broken the political environment will only be better for passing real reform down the road.
In other words, I disagree with those who claim that health care reform is one of those once in a generation reforms which we need to get right, here and now. Rather I see this as a battle consisting of milestones.
In fact, I see a parallel with the civil rights movement. In 64 we got the Voting Rights Act. Did it solve the crime of racial inequality in this country? No. Was it an important, even indispensable step in that direction? Clearly yes.
And so is this piece of so-called reform legislation. While it is not reform, we need to realize that, for now, health care in this legislative cycle is a POLITICAL battle, not a POLICY battle. It is on that basis that Pelosi-Reid must be passed. The policy will have to come later, but the political victory is the prerequisite.
Fresh ammunition is always useful. Here are 2 unintended consequences that the present healthcare proposals seem likely to produce:
1. If we do get to a situation where a family of 4 making $50,000 or $60,000 a year is mandated to shell out $5,000, or $6,000, or $7,000 for the public option, then it will be only a hop, skip, and political jump to saying a retired couple with similar income ought to be paying the same or more for their medicare. Fair is fair, right?
2. It must cost employers more to leave employees uninsured than to buy insurance, or the public option makes no fiscal sense. Economically rational employers will simply drop coverage and tell employees to use the public option, while pocketing most of the money that now pays for healthcare nationwide. The government cost of the public option will soar, and the staggering cost shift to private individuals will be even larger.
Even if I agreed with these premises, which I don’t, your conclusions are off. We’re not unhappy with the results, but with the ridiculous compromises that are being put forward as the starting point.
You do understand that the weak bs that Speaker Pelosi and the even weaker bs that Leader Reid unveiled this week are the starting points for the still weaker bs that will eventually get to the President’s desk, right?
I could be wrong, but from your comments about not issuing any grades yet, whether A or F, and rather giving an Incomplete, that you’re a university student born in the late 1980s.
Well, let me tell you that you’re absolutely watching the Democratic leadership throw away once-in-a-generation opportunities.
I made one case @ 69 for the Democratic leadership having failed to show greater strength in previous election cycles.
Let me present another argument for the failure of the current Democratic leadership:
Current Democratic leaders – Obama first and foremost – can do so much more to achieve the real change that they promised, but they aren’t.
Above, @ 69, I argued that their failures to support real Democrats in the past is part of the problem now.
But the truth is that, while they could be doing so much more than they are now, with the majorities that they already have, they’re inexplicably choosing not to.
I’m not saying that I’d vote for Republicans or make contributions to Republicans, but why should I or anyone else who believed in these leaders continue to support them with contributions or our votes?
Republicans will take control of Congress back next year because the base of the Democratic Party will sit out the election, and Obama should start worrying that we’ll sit out the 2012 election, too.
Thanks for the optimism. I certainly need it.
But I remain unconvinced. Social Security was supposed to be a beginning, not a once-in-a-lifetime reform. But it turned out to exactly that–at best. It has done a lot of good and been better than nothing. But it is far from a workable guaranteed pension system like those in most civilized countries. And far from being a stepping stone to greater things, it has been under threat throughout my life time at least.
The voters have delivered the Party’s once-in-a-liftime electoral success–complete control of the Federal government–and this is what they get in return? A weak-as-water pseudo option that they get to pay for in advance with no benefit for years to come if ever? And with every opportunity for the insurance fraud artists to game the new rules as affectively as the last? And with health as the HIGHPOINT? Against a background of perpetual war, permanently repealed civil liberties, and amnesty for the most vicious crimes in American history?
I don’t see a lot of promise in that, either of party success or solutions to our problems. Health care is probably the easiest reform other than ending the war. Compared to them, global warming is a monumental problem with bigger opponents and a much tighter timeline. Somehow, we have to shock our so-called leaders out of their happy, greedy lethargy and make them act now, while there is still time and opportunity and some resources left.
I’m just running out of ideas, other than punishing the Party for its weakness. Politicians have put us off for too long with the claim that half a loaf or half a Democrat is better than none. The better metaphor is a day late and a dollar short. I don’t accept a short payment on a debt paid late as if it were full payment on time. There has to be a penalty.
Okay, people, time to get in a 12 step program. We have been enabling these corporate Democrats. Matt Taibbi in his 2005 book “Spanking the Donkey” identified Dems back then as junkies. They are addicted to corporate cash and the power buzz it gives them. They spout gibberish on the TV to the bloviators of blather. The Fat Cat News spills out drivel by having on professors like Tom Schaller babbling about Democrats being the party of change and Republicans being the party of status quo. Really? What do you call the changes Bush made in tax cuts, wiretapping, torture, war, rape of the enivironment? What do you call the changes Bill Clinton made in deregulating the media and the banks and NAFTA and the WTO? Same deal. They both made radical changes in keeping with the Milton Friedman free market flim flam.
Phrases like “status quo” and “change” have no meaning anymore. We are beyond Orwell. Schaller uses the pollster Celinda Lake to buck up his old tired left/right divide. Barf! The Dems use the pollsters to come up with deadly sentences and weasel phrases to keep all this smoke and mirrors thing going. The Repugs do the same.
We have been co-dependents eager to “fix the problem”. In our neediness, we have come to the rescue of these junkies time and time again. What do we get? Just like a drunk’s wife, we get abused. Time for us to cut them off cold turkey.
I tell each phone call “Not one dime until we get the money out. Public financing of short elections with free TV and Radio time. ” Oh, and immediate health care for everybody.
One of our biggest interviews yet will be tomorrow at 4PM Eastern time. (2PM Mountain Time) MATT TAIBBI will be on our radio show “The Edge”. Live stream at kmmsam.com. Call in at 406 522 Talk.
I’m going to ask him what we should do. From reading his book, I think it will have something to do with truth.
If you all don’t have the nerves of steel required to sustain pressure on the legislative process through its fits and starts without freaking out, then you all do not have the mettle required to build an independent political formation capable of presenting a sustained challenge to the Democrat Party.
Money in politics has a simple but difficult solution: taxation.
The problem we have is that too few people have lots of money. Even if small contributors can sometimes match a wealthy individual’s big check with sheer volume of contributors, they can’t do so at short noice or reliably over time. So while the current huge inequalities in wealth persist, wealth will be political power.
Campaign finance limits and public financing have largely turned out to be futile. Courts influenced and staffed by wealthy lawyers are ever more prone to equate money and speech, and the best financed are best equipped to game public financing rules that are themselves written by legislators who owe power to money.
Income taxes were the country’s first and so far the only successful way of constraining the power of moneyed minorities. Tax them enough, and they won’t have the excess resources to pour into slush funds and campaign coffers. The revenue can then be spend on jobs, public works, education, healthcare–the things that narrow the wealth gap.
This is why I now think that taxing the wealthy at historically high rates should be a primary aim of all progressive/liberal politics. We have to make relation between income inequality, economic decline, and political corruption the core message that people take away from every issue. Health care reform leaving all those greedy hands in your pockets? War still killing your kids? Out of work despite the “end” of the recession? Being screwed worse than ever by your banker? Blame the rich and their pot of tax-free bribe money. Tell your Congressman to take the pot away.
Can it be done? I think so–with enough anger. But being patient and letting the process work is not going to do the job. Congress and the White House will need to be blindsided by a white-hot rage just when they thought they’d soothed the voters with the usual nostrums.
This project would require hard work, actual real grassroots organizing in the real world.
This process is valuable because it can serve as an organizing tool upon which a credible challenge to corporate power can be built.
Progressives labor at our peril under the misapprehension that if only people knew the truth, that they would get angry and things would automagically resolve themselves our way.
But freaking out in the middle that things are not going your way does not bode well for the sustained, long haul follow through required to build grassroots political power. There are no short cuts.
Still going on with the Limbaugh “Democrat” Party bs, eh?
I’ll just use this nonsensical assertion – is “fits and starts” supposed to be a joke? – as an pportunity to remind everyone about the FDL Action call:
“Fund Organizers in Arkansas: Dare Blanche Lincoln to Filibuster the Public Option.”
Our contributions have already totaled over $18,000!
“We’re not unhappy with the results, but with the ridiculous compromises that are being put forward as the starting point.”
I’m not sure how that distinction is relevant. The bottom line is the same: the legislation that is being proposed, and the legislation that looks to possibly pass, cannot accurately be termed as reform. There we agree. The only question is whether or not, despite that, its passage will serve some useful purpose. I contend that some of the proposed versions of “reform” will serve a useful purpose if one of them becomes law. If I understand you correctly, your position is that none of the current 7 versions accomplish anything, either politically or policy-wise.
“You do understand that the weak bs that Speaker Pelosi and the even weaker bs that Leader Reid unveiled this week are the starting points for the still weaker bs that will eventually get to the President’s desk, right?”
You are half right. It is possible that the legislation coming out of the Senate will be even weaker than Reid’s current proposal, particularly if the Democrats choose not to play the necessary hardball to get Lieberman et al in line. If they balk, we could easily wind up with a public option with opt-in rather than opt-out. That would be an unacceptable disaster.
However, with regard to the House and the final bill, you are wrong. In the House, Pelosi advanced the most conservative version that can possibly pass the House. It will either remain unchanged or be improved, e.g. with a public option tied to Medicare rates and/or with the addition of the Weiner and/or Kucinich amendments.
In joint House/Senate conference the House version will likely be more liberal than the Senate version. The most likely outcome there will therefore be either the Senate version or something more liberal than the Senate version.
The bottom line is that the bill that passes the Senate in a week or so, assuming something will pass at all, will be the worse the legislation ever looks. If we can get it through the Senate with a public option with an opt-out, the most conservative public option acceptable to most progressives, then the final legislation will be at least as good or better.
“I could be wrong, but from your comments about not issuing any grades yet, whether A or F, and rather giving an Incomplete, that you’re a university student born in the late 1980s.”
You could be wrong, and you are. I’m 54 years old, and this is the first time in my life, since I first was clean for Gene at the ripe old age of 14, when the McCarthy/McGovern/Udall/Kennedy/Hart/Dukakis/Brown/Bradley/Dean wing’s presidential candidate actually WON. Which is why I continue to believe that this is the first time the Democratic party has ever had a fighting chance of being an effective progressive force. I’ve been involved as a political activist for over four decades, and I’ve never seen the nation come this close to a progressive era in my lifetime. The FDR era was the last time we were this close, and that was obviously before my time.
“Current Democratic leaders – Obama first and foremost – can do so much more to achieve the real change that they promised, but they aren’t.”
They haven’t SO FAR. But today is not the deadline; the deadline is November 2nd, 2010.
“I’m not saying that I’d vote for Republicans or make contributions to Republicans, but why should I or anyone else who believed in these leaders continue to support them with contributions or our votes?”
We shouldn’t, for now. We should not close the door on such support either, for now. For now, our job is to hold everyone’s feet to the fire, and to continue to work hard, as Jane and other progressive leaders continue to do. Two weeks ago Reid may have been getting ready to sell us out. We have managed to avert that calamity.
Obviously we continue to keep this thing alive, although working our fingers to the bone to do so. That is our assignment for the next several months. The day of judgement comes next November.
“Social Security was supposed to be a beginning…[Yet] far from being a stepping stone to greater things, it has been under threat throughout my life time at least.”
A fair point. My analogy with the civil rights movement suggests that defeating the insurance companies, the teabaggers and the neocons on the point of a real public option is a politically useful first step. On the other hand, your analogy with Social Security suggests that passing an inadequate health reform bill as a first step is counter-productive. There is really no way of knowing, at this point, which one of us is right on that point.
“The voters have delivered the Party’s once-in-a-liftime electoral success–complete control of the Federal government–and this is what they get in return? A weak-as-water pseudo option that they get to pay for in advance with no benefit for years to come if ever?”
Just to be precise, we have got NOTHING yet, and we don’t yet know what we WILL get. We’re still in the middle of the sausage-making, which is why conclusions with regard to what we’ve ‘got’ is premature and irrelevant at this point.
“Somehow, we have to shock our so-called leaders out of their happy, greedy lethargy and make them act now, while there is still time and opportunity and some resources left.”
I couldn’t agree more. And I would say that we are getting that job done, judging by the way we succeeded in resurrecting the public option from the dead. Getting that job done is our obligation, and we must continue to discharge that obligation for another year. Definitive judgement with regard to the results obtained from that effort are premature at this time.
“I don’t accept a short payment on a debt paid late as if it were full payment on time. There has to be a penalty.”
I entirely agree. And the time for us to assess and levy that penalty is when the battle is lost or won, not when we’re in the middle of the skirmish.
You’re not sure how the distinction I asserted – We’re not unhappy with the results, but with the ridiculous compromises that are being put forward as the starting point – is relevant?
It’s very relevant.
And the bottom line is not the same.
You write:
You’re wrong. Blue Dogs should have been publicly shamed and privately threatened by the Democratic leadership.
Where was President Obama? Why isn’t he fighting for real change? Why isn’t he pointing out the stupidity of so-called fiscal conservatives, who oppose a robust public option, which would save the government more money than the weak bs public option that these so-called fiscal conservative Conservadems have been pushing on us. Nothing about this proposal that Speaker Pelosi unveiled yesterday makes sense, and she and other Democratic leaders definitely could have done so much better than this bs.
Sorry, but we’re not waiting until some teabagger judgment day to speak loudly to our representatives and to pressure them to act like Democrats or get out of the way.
So, I’ll use this response as yet another opportunity to point out the FDL Action call:
“Fund Organizers in Arkansas: Dare Blanche Lincoln to Filibuster the Public Option.”
Our contributions have already totaled over $18,000!
If the party were “Democratic,” then we’d not be having this discussion because the party would be representing the people, huh?
How do you expect to organize against the Democrat Party if you are going to take picayune issue with choice of language by those disgusted with the party? The politics of addition and multiplication works much better than the politics of subtraction and division.
Words have semantics and I’d hope that we could preserve the semantics of “democratic” by not tainting it with the Party of the individual mandate, neutered public option, special drug tax for americans, wall street giveaway, and Joe Lieberman.
Was I typing at you here?
Actions against individual senators are very useful for the current quandary. But if you’re talking about taking on the Democrat Party, like so many here are, then that takes real sustained organizing work, not just online fundraising and ad placement.
“You’re not sure how the distinction I asserted – We’re not unhappy with the results, but with the ridiculous compromises that are being put forward as the starting point – is relevant? It’s very relevant.”
So you have now claimed, twice. You have yet to explain HOW.
“You write: ‘In the House, Pelosi advanced the most conservative version that can possibly pass the House.’
“You’re wrong. Blue Dogs should have been publicly shamed and privately threatened by the Democratic leadership.”
How am I wrong? How was the version Pelosi revealed yesterday not the most conservative version that could possily have passed the House? If it had been even a mite more conservative Pelosi would have lost the progressive caucuse.
As for the second statement, that Blue Dogs should have been publicly shame and privately threatened, I couldn’t agree with you more. And I fail to see how that fact contradicts my statement that Pelosi came out with the most conservative version possible in the House.
“Where was President Obama? Why isn’t he fighting for real change? Why isn’t he pointing out the stupidity of so-called fiscal conservatives, who oppose a robust public option, which would save the government more money than the weak bs public option that these so-called fiscal conservative Conservadems have been pushing on us.”
I couldn’t agree more. So?
“Sorry, but we’re not waiting until some teabagger judgment day to speak loudly to our representatives and to pressure them to act like Democrats or get out of the way.”
Again, I completely agree with you. It was precisely that sort of pressure on our part that has kept the public option alive against all odds. I fail to see how continuing those efforts in any way contradicts my suggestions with regard to the appropriate point at which we reach definitive judgements on whether the Dems have or have not betrayed us.
We seem to agree on much. But not on the following:
“And the time for us to assess and levy that penalty is when the battle is lost or won, not when we’re in the middle of the skirmish.”
If military history is our chosen metaphor there are LOTS of times when the penalty gets assessed and levied in the middle of the battle. Courts martial and MPs make armies work. Generals get sacked when they lose or just don’t seem to be winning as thoroughly as they should be. Britain’s Admiral Byng was shot for no more than failing “to do his utmost.” Deserters are likewise shot by their officers. And sometimes, lousy officers get shot by their mutinous troops.
Assessing and levying penalties in the middle of things is how battles get fought, at least to the extent that wars are fought as organized, semi-civilized undertakings rather than pure brawls. As one of Voltaire’s characters puts it, “il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres” (“it is good to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others”).
But what you seem to be saying–and what the Party leadership is certainly saying–is that we mustn’t second-guess the war-time commander-in-chief and his generals on the ground in middle of the great sausage-grinding reform war.
Well, I’m not one of the troops that has to obey the chain of command. As a voter, I am at the TOP of the chain of command–and rapidly losing confidence in it. Our admirals need some encouragement.
They think we’re stupid and we are.
I got that same email asking for cash.
I don’t think I’ve ever gotten one from the Dems where they just asked my opinion or asked how I was doing…they always included a request for $$$.
Pelosi was pretty much wedged, in that the Blue Dogs could easily amend anything on the floor, with the willing help of the GOP, to make it more conservative, while the GOP would happily vote against it at the end of the day.
Whether you intend to or not, you are associating yourself with Limbaugh and moronic Republic leaders who have created their own meaning for the term “Democrat” Party when you use that term.
I’m aware that you have your own meaning for that term and that your meaning is perfectly valid in your own mind, but you’re only communicating to others that you’re a Dittohead every time you use it.
Hey, have you seen that the FDL Action “Fund Organizers in Arkansas: Dare Blanche Lincoln to Filibuster the Public Option” campaign has already totaled over $18,000?!
You really need to get out of your comfort zone more often if you expect to be building a coalition capable of challenging the Democrats and winning elections.
The reason why I use that term is precisely to get insular liberals to acknowledge that historically some of the most prescient critiques of progressivism and liberalism come from the right. Not the looney right, but there are intelligent, principled conservative people spend huge sums of money trying to poke holes in our ideas, and when they do so based on reason, they generally catch stuff that was don’t see.
But, please, keep up with the “politics by cootie” approach. It is working well to elect Democrat presidents and majorities which are delivering change we can believe in, change we can count on.
It’s not about my comfort zone. It’s about you communicating to others something that you don’t mean to, or at least communicating to others something that I don’t think you mean to.
You’re not a disciple of the sleazy comedian Limbaugh, are you?
Why not just refer to the Democratic Party as the “Undemocratic Party” or something similar?
I agree with taxing the shit out of the top 400 or so like we’ve done since the first great bank depression. The top marginal rate was 92% during Eisenhower’s time. It then fell and stayed at around 72% until Reagan.
There is just so much money a person needs. If he has too much funny money, it is just used to gamble. Denmark is supposed to be the happiest country in survey after survey. They also have the least inequality. A company’s profits go into research and development and in wages. James Galbraith’s book “The Predator State” is the best book I’ve read on why inequality has ruined our country. Full employment is a worthy goal. But the free marketers want you to believe that is unrealistic because of …boogah…boogah…scary inflation.
Read also Greider’s “The Secrets of the Temple”. It was all about the banks and Volcker didn’t seem to care about farmers and building contractors committing suicide because of 20% interest rates making it impossible to keep their farms and businesses. Supposedly when Volcker met with representatives from farm states about the dire straits of farmers he said “Your constituents aren’t happy. Mine are.”
We should not be borrowing money from the Federal Reserve and paying interest to the bankers. Time to get make it a central bank under Treasury. We should pool our money to build schools and pay for health care. Check out Stephen Zarlenga and the American monetary institute at
http://monetary.org/
If Rush Limbaugh ever used any of those words, your using them means that you are equivalent to him.
I do like watching Glen Beck, however, offering up his interpretation of the machinations of the Veal Pen.
His tree of revolution is amazing, as if the SEIU and ACORN were the vanguard of a revolution.
Because that would not whup complacent Democrat Party disciples and apologists up side the head and typing those extra characters would waste valuable electrons.
“But what you seem to be saying–and what the Party leadership is certainly saying–is that we mustn’t second-guess the war-time commander-in-chief and his generals on the ground in middle of the great sausage-grinding reform war.”
No, I’m not saying that. That would only be relevant if we were not ourselves actively engaged in combat OURSELVES (meaning us, the progressive activist community). If we were merely bystanders, on the sidelines and judging, then an exhortation for us to suspend judgement and give our commander and his general the benefit of the doubt would be entirely inappropriate, I agree.
BUT WE ARE COMBATANTS OURSELVES. I submit that we really have NO IDEA how this is going to turn out. We’ve got a job to do at the moment, and that is to fight and claw our way through to progressive reform, on health care, on foreign policy, on energy, etc. We’re on the field RIGHT NOW. We’re launching strikes and receiving incoming RIGHT NOW. Assessments as to how we’re doing are therefore not really relevant at the moment.
Another reason why it’s not really relevant in my opinion is that the political establishment, PARTICULARLY DEMOCRATS, are NOT our ally. Rather they’re the target of our campaign. To abruptly switch to another metaphor, they are the beasts that need to be coaxed, jostled, nudged and pushed into doing the right thing. It’s absurd at this point to conclude that they’re evil, that they’ve betrayed us, that we need to have them replaced. And it will continue to be absurd to do so until we know whether we are successful in teaching them to dance, to balance a ball at the end of their trunks, to jump through hoops, etc. etc.
The point at which we decide whether to swap out the animals is November 2, ’10. There’s no relevance or point to doing so before then.
Democratic politicians are either too stupid to see how the right has used Atwater / Rove / Luntz hatemongering and swiftboating for 30 years to secure the power they’ve got, or else they’re complicit in the facade that there are two competing parties.
Either way, it’s bad news. When Nancy Pelosi announces on her first day as Majority Leader that “impeachment is off the table”, and the Republican response is to attack her character on a daily basis from a hundred different fronts to this very day, it really is either complete stupidity or contemptible enabling that allows this to be the status quo.
You want bipartisanship? How about “No matter which party a politician belongs to, if they say something hateful and evil and dishonest, I will call them on it and I will not mince words!” That would be a welcome form of bipartisanship, instead of the pathetic double-standard we have now.
Bravo Larue! Give ‘em Hell!
It’s OK to increase Democratic majorities as long as we’re not voting for people who are Republicans running using the Dem label. Those people we have to primary, and in any areas where Republican are incumbent we need to nominate and elect Dems who are progressive. Two other things are also very important. First we have to get rid of the filibuster. And second, we need to get rid of Pelosi and Reid. The cleanest way to do that is to defeat them due to opposition from the left. We also need to get rid of Steny Hoyer to make sure he doesn’t take over for Pelosi.
I suggest you change your handle to realassholejim. You’ve earned it!
Thinking we’re stupid is not the half of it.
Look at this provision from the bill in the House:
Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.
Meaning, if a state adopts any provision to try to limit frivolous lawsuits, they can’t get any “incentives.”
Who paid them off for that provision????
I’m sorry Criggs, this is just a rationalization for their failure to perform. You say:
I don’t know what kind of empirical data you have, But most people I’ve seen comment here don’t feel that way at all, and the general public doesn’t yet have an understanding of what Reid proposed. You say:
This is idea ridiculous. First a good public option was well-defined by Jacob Hacker, the popularizer of the PO idea. Its characteristics may not be well understood by the public, but they are perfectly well understood by people watching the health care reform debate.
Hacker’s idea is the standard for what a good PO is, not whether a PO that is passed is a defeat for the Republicans or not. Your silly standard lets the Republicans decide what a good PO is based on what they oppose, rather than on our best guess of what will function well if it is passed.
Hacker’s PO provided for:
– immediate practicable implementation on the exchange; not implementation in 2013 and not gradual further implementation in 2014 and 2015;
– immediate prohibition of insurance company and abuses such as denials based on preconditions and rescissions, and raising insurance rates of those who get sick; not continued allowance of denials based on preconditions until 2013, and the ability to have different rates based on different classes of people;
– mandates for individuals to have insurance along with subsidies for those who select the PO; noy subsidies for those who select private insurance;
– All Americans eligible for the exchange, except those already in Medicare; not eligibility restricted only to the uninsured;
– Use of the Medicare provider network with no privileges for providers to opt-out of the PO; not an opt-out for providers;
– Use of Medicare rates; not use of either Medicare + 5%, or negotiated rates;
– Launching of the PO with 45 million people in it with forecast expansion to 129 million people within five years; not launching of the PO with no enrollees with a forecast of expansion to 10 million in five years.
The “reform bill” passing through the House and Senate are corporate sell-outs. They will deliver $50,000,000,000 in additional business to private insurance companies annually without any meaningful controls on the cherry-picking of these companies, and without any meaningful controls on their pricing practices. the subsidies in them are not substantial enough to make insurance affordable. They will impose a financial burden on people by mandating unreliable private insurance. They will do little to cut down the annual deaths of 45,000 due to lack of insurance before 2013. We are still looking at a likely 150,000,000 additional deaths due to lack of insurance until then. We are probably looking at a 40% rise in insurance rates before the exchange occurs. And we are still looking at 1 million bankruptcies a year until at least until 2013, and to substantial continuing bankruptcies after that due to insurance deductibles, co-pays and other unforeseen fees.
No this bill is not some compromise to which the half-a-loaf is better than nothing rule applies. It is a piece of crap that does very little to solve our problems and progressives and Democrats in Congress would be far better off defeating this bill and coming back next year for single payer HR 676.
Above you say, that these bills are certainly not single-payer. Very true, but they’re also not a good PO either, and they’re also not very good at regulating the insurance companies. What they are good at is taking taxpayer money, transferring it to the insurance companies, and getting very little value in return. And that’s just unacceptable. You say that if the Democrats fail to deliver it may be time to go to a third party. Well, I think they are failing to deliver, and my evidence for this is the disconnect between what many of us progressives think, and the way the Democrats in Congress think they are performing.
They seem totally blind to the inadequacies of this bill. They want everyone to be grateful to them for their “historic” achievement. These people can’t even see reality. They are so caught in the Washington bubble, they can’t even see how far short of both Medicare for All, and Hacker’s PO idea they have fallen. They can’t even see what bitterness the public will meet this bill with when they hear that the PO won’t even be operational until 2013, and that, even then, most of them won’t be able to choose it.
You know what most people will say? They will say: Are you serious, you mean I elected you to do something about the health care mess and you expect me to wait 4 years before anything significant happens, and then you’re going to leave me at the mercy of the same insurance system that’s screwing me now? Are you crazy? Do you think we’re crazy? What kind of Democrats are you anyway?
Term limits & real campaign finance reform anybody?
If congressman and woman weren’t beholden to contributions, and didn’t treat the privilege of getting elected by the people to be a representative for their constituency as a lifetime appointment that must be held onto under any circumstances, then perhaps they would do what is right more often.
So long as politicians prioritize getting reelected above legislating change that is actually positive and beneficial for people in this country, major reform will not take place.
I will admit that this is the closest thing to real change that I have seen in my lifetime and as such my expectations were higher than normal. This is true for most of you, I presume. So it’s not a surprise that once the veil of illusion is removed from our line of site, we scramble to come up with solutions. Unfortunately, the mechanisms of change consists of more than just the numbers.
I am proud to see the reestablishment of the liberal/progressive movement in this country. It gives me hope. Sites like this one, and several others make the movement sustainable. Though first we must address the issues that taint the process, before we can stop having these fights while flailing in quicksand.
I must admit though, we came close, irregardless of the rigged struggle. Even still, it’s possible to right some important wrongs, like ending preexisting conditions. However in the end, especially without a real public option, this bill will only be remembered for mandating coverage.
I hope I’m wrong.
We need to restore the marginal tax rates under that great Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, without the loopholes that will generate plenty of money to solve all of our problems.
marcos, we’re not freaking out we’re screaming that their bill stinks. They need to hear that now before it gets passed. Especially since they seem to have no clue about how progressives feel about what they’re doing. Can you imagine, they even stripped out the Kucinich Amendment? That’s a gratuitous insult. BTW, p. 22 of the bill gives insurance companies the right to raise rates by 25% when it goes into effect. This is Pelosi’s bill. Are you kidding me? If they pass this monstrosity, it will be the end of the Democratic Party.
Yes, it is all an illusion painted by propaganda. And the people inside the bubble are delusional as to their worth. The Democrats used to have a certain feeling of pride being the party of the people, but like most humans they were always envious of the Fat Cats. Once they started feeding at the trough, the idea of having to forage for food once more was not something they wanted to do.
Criggs, They need to be judged every day and pressured everyday. You say:
Actually, it’s not clear how much amending there will be in either the House or the Senate. There may be very little that comes to the floor in the Senate that Herry Reid doesn’t want. Unless he decides to go around the filibuster, his bill won’t get more liberal. In the House indications are that Pelosi is putting tight controls on the process and may even renege on her agreement with Anthony Weiner to allow a floor vote on HR 676. The Conference bill may get a bit more progressive. The opt-out may go, but I don’t see the PO getting any stronger. Nancy says she didn’t have the votes for Medicare plus 5%. Neither does Harry. Unless the leaders put that in prevent amendments on it and dare people to vote against that in the bill, it won’t pass. So what it comes down to is that Obama’s lack of leadership supplemented by Pelosi’s and Reid’s, is in the process of dooming us to a terrible bill.
Email your representative and senators and demand a strong public health care insurance option at http://bit.ly/public_option
This effectively will demand that single payer serve as the public option.
Otherwise called a few kicks in the rear end.
A palpable hit! I’ve never had the Democrats send me anything except a request for a contribution either. In e-mail solicitations, they don’t even have a form for feedback if one chooses not to give.
Pelosi can manage the floor amendment process to prevent that from happening.
“‘Well, so far, most of us, I think, agree that the bill he finally came up with, while certainly not single-payer, was on the acceptable side of the line for most of us.’
“I don’t know what kind of empirical data you have, But most people I’ve seen comment here don’t feel that way at all”
If you read news accounts, I think you’ll find most progressive groups were relieved/pleased that Reid put the PO back into the Senate bill (as per the HELP version, albeit with the opt-out added) after the Baucus/SFC stripped it out of theirs. Moreover, it was precisely because the Reid version was NOT opt-in and was NOT the trigger version that many in the progressive community were so relieved. Take a look, for instance, at Dean’s and Weiner’s reaction.
“‘What defines a good public option? Anything which is seen as a clear defeat for the bad guys.’
“This is idea ridiculous. First a good public option was well-defined by Jacob Hacker…Hacker’s idea is the standard for what a good PO is, not whether a PO that is passed is a defeat for the Republicans or not. Your silly standard lets the Republicans decide what a good PO is based on what they oppose, rather than on our best guess of what will function well if it is passed.”
You have rather significantly missed my definition of the bad guys. If anything more conservative than the version with the opt-out passes, then liberals will clearly be perceived to have lost. The Olympia Snowes and Ben Nelsons will have won. They are the most significant of the bad guys.
So, when I say that I want everyone to acknowledge that the bad guys lost, here’s a good example of what I’m talking about. The day after the Senate passes the opt-out version, I want the news media and the pundits to be full of the fact that they were wrong about this being a center-right country. I want them to be talking about how the energized progressive activists in this country, both the netroots and elsewhere, are engaged and effective as never before. I want them to be talking about the resurgence of a progressive FDR-type era, of the ascendancy of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, about the virtual destruction of the DLC. If the trigger version or the opt-in version of the PO passes that won’t happen. If the opt-out version passes, that will happen; it’s as simple as that.
In politics, perception is nine-tenths of reality. If folks PERCEIVE the passage of PO, even with the opt-out, as a sign of the coming of a liberal era, the odds are high that it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, just as the perception that the 1980 Reagan victory along with the Republican takeover in Congress presaged a conservative era became a self-fulfilling prophecy leading to 29 years of misery.
This new perception will have the entirely positive side-effect of Democratic politicians who currently live with battered spouse syndrome where liberal causes are concerned realizing that it’s no longer 2004 and that they need to take yes for an answer (can you spell Evan Bayh?).
And I don’t disagree at all that the perfect version of PO in some ivory tower (as provided by guru Hacker or whoever) might be rather good. But since our first need at this point is a POLITICAL victory, rather than a POLICY victory (the latter being no longer possible), that is beside the point.
“Unless he decides to go around the filibuster, his bill won’t get more liberal. In the House indications are that Pelosi is putting tight controls on the process and may even renege on her agreement with Anthony Weiner to allow a floor vote on HR 676. The Conference bill may get a bit more progressive. The opt-out may go”
Just to clarify the context of my statement, it was claimed that the only directon the bill can now go is bad. I disagree with that. The only remaining opportunity to make the bill worse than it already is is in the Senate, where there are rumors that Reid may fold and accept the DLC opt-in version of the PO rather than the more liberal opt-out version. Barring that calamity, the Senate bill will pass with the opt-out version, which means that the final bill will either be just as bad or slightly better.
You yourself have acknowledged, in general, that the bill is likely to get more progressive in conference, because the House verson will probably be more liberal than the Senate’s. You have even suggested that the opt-out provision may be removed.
Where you appear to believe that you are in disagreement with me is on the question of whether or not the final bill will be good or bad. Well, if that is the case, you are NOT in disagreement with me; I am more than ready to agree that, in policy terms, the final bill will not be a real reform bill. My point, however, is that the policy side of the bill is not the only criterion one should apply to determine whether or not its passage will help the progressive cause. One also needs to take into account the political effect of passing a PO, or a PO with an opt-out (rather than the DLC opt-in version or the Snowe trigger version). And, on that score, passing either will be perceived overwhelmingly by the establishment as a victory for progressives.
Well if we would had spent our effort doing the two things that I suggested, we probably wouldn’t be sitting around arguing about how to keep the public option alive (which none of us really want anyways), and instead we would be arguing about how best to sell and implement a single payer system.
I know everybody is trying to work with the realities and variables available now, but if we actually started to think long term, fighting for real campaign finance reform and term limits should be our number 1 priority. Then we can start implementing the real changes that have been on the liberal check list for years, provided we ever win back the super majority.
The current bill, is mostly going to be remembered for mandating coverage and it will be used against us for the foreseeable future. Not really a winning strategy, in my opinion?
If we can’t get a real meaningful version of the public option, we need to either remove the mandate from the current legislation or pressure our representatives in the house to vote down the bill all together. Perhaps then, we can remove the obstacles that are making real change so difficult?